On 9/29/2016 3:16 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > On 09/29/2016 05:36 PM, Neo Jia wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:05:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/29/2016 04:55 PM, Jike Song wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> In order to have a clear understanding about the VFIO mdev upstreaming >>>> status, I'd like to summarize it. Please share your opinions on this, >>>> and correct my misunderstandings. >>>> >>>> The whole vfio mdev series can be logically divided into several parts, >>>> they work together to provide the mdev support. >>> >>> I think what Jike want to suggest is how about partially push/develop >>> the >>> mdev. As jike listed, there are some parts can be independent and >>> they have >>> mostly been agreed. >>> >>> Such development plan can make the discussion be much efficient in the >>> community. Also it make the possibility that Intel, Nvdia, IBM can focus >>> on different parts and co-develop it. >> >> Hi Guangrong, >> >> JFYI. we are preparing v8 patches to accommodate most comments we have >> discussed >> so far and we will also include several things that we have decided on >> sysfs. >> >> I definitely would like to see more interactive discussions especially >> on the >> sysfs class front from intel folks. >> >> Regarding the patch development and given the current status, >> especially where >> we are and what we have been through, I am very confident that we >> should be able >> to fully handle this ourselves, but thanks for offering help anyway! >> >> We should be able to react as fast as possible based on the public >> mailing list >> discussions, so again I don't think that part is an issue. > > We understand the progress goes okay. However, splitting such big patchset > into small parts is a better way to push large code to upstream - it is > better for review and validation and we can quickly iterate the code if > there are new issues exposed during the review of new version. > > Particularly, based on the current situation that the sysfs interfaces are > far from the way to be decided, it is definitely a good idea to push the > basic infrastructure first, later let's focal on the ABI part - sysfs > interface design. > Yes, we will have v8 series soon out for review even if sysfs interface discussion is not settled down to get other pieces reviewed and tested. In this patch set, we will have basic set of sysfs interface which we all have agreed on until now like 'create' and 'remove'. Thanks, Kirti -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
